Advertisement

Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive E-learning: ALFANET project case

  • Slavi StoyanovEmail author
  • Paul Kirchner
Development

Abstract

The article presents empirical evidence for the effectiveness and efficiency of a modified version of Trochim's (1989a, b) concept mapping approach to define the characteristics of an adaptive learning environment. The effectiveness and the efficiency of the method are attributed to the support that it provides in terms of elicitation, sharing, reflection and representation of knowledge. It produced valuable results in a very short time as compared to classical techniques such as questionnaires and interviews. The interpretation of data suggests some theoretical considerations and practical solutions for the design and development of an adaptive e-learning environment. The research also points to a number of ways to improve the technique in terms of time for discussing ideas, visualization, and explicit support for generating unconventional ideas.

Keywords

Instructional Design Concept Mapping Trigger Statement Cept Mapping Adaptive Learning Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Active learning for adaptive Internet (ALFANET) project. (2002).Users requirements (Project deliverable report). European Communities, Fifth Framework Information Society Technology program (IST-2001-33288).Google Scholar
  2. Arlow, J., & Neustadt, I. (2001).UML and the unified process: Practical object-oriented analysis and design. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Ayersman, D., & Von Midden, A. (1995). Individual differences, computers, and instruction.Computers in Human Behavior, 11(3–4), 371–390.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Bastiaens, Th. J., Nijhof, W. J., Streumer, J. N., & Abma, H. J. (1997a). Working and learning with electronic performance support systems: An effectiveness study.Training for Quality, 5(1), 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastiaens, Th. J., Nijhof, W. J., Streumer, J. N., & Abma, H. J. (1997b). Electronic performance support systems for telephone operators. In H. Preskill. & R. L. Dilworth, (Eds.),Human resource development in transition. Defining the cutting edge (pp. 75–86). Washington: ISPI/AHRD.Google Scholar
  7. Brandon-Hall.com. (2002).Learning management system 2002. Retrieved June 17, 2002, from: http://www. brandonhall.com./public/publications/LMS2002/Google Scholar
  8. Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1996).The mind map book. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, J. (2000).Making use: Scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, R. (1993). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clegg, B., & Birch, P. (1999).Instant creativity. London, UK:Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  12. Concept System (Demo version) [Computer software]. (2002). Ithaca, New York: Concept System Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Constantine, L. (2001).The peopleware papers: Notes on the human side of software. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Constantine, L., & Lockwood, L. (1999).Software for use: A practical guide to the models and methods of usagecentered design (ACM Press Series). Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Cross, N. (2000).Engineering design methods. Strategy for product design (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Decision Explorer® [Computer software]. (2003). Kendal, Cumbria, UK: Banxia Software.Google Scholar
  17. Eden, C., Ackermann, F., & Cropper, S. (1997).Getting started with cognitive mapping. Glasgow, UK: Banxia Software.Google Scholar
  18. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2002).Making strategy. The journey of strategic management. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (2000).Cognitive psychology. London, UK: LEA.Google Scholar
  20. Gery, G. (1995). Attributes and behaviors of performance-centered systems.Performance Improvement Quarterly 8(1), 47–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodgson, A. M. (1999).Hexagons for system thinking. Retrieved March 16, 1999 from: http://www.idongroup.com/assoc/hexsys/hesys.htmGoogle Scholar
  22. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992).The manual of learning styles Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey.Google Scholar
  23. Inspiration® [Computer software]. (2002). Beaverton Hillsdale, Portland: Inspiration Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, K., & Trochim, W. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of openended survey responses.Organizational Research Methods, 5 (4), 307–336.Google Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D., & Grabowski, B. (1993).Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  26. Jonassen, D. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environment. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.),Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89–117). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  27. Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1998).Please understand me. Character and temperament types. DelMar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis.Google Scholar
  28. Kessels, J. (1999). A relational approach to curriculum design. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plompt (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 59–70). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  29. Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merriënboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.Google Scholar
  30. Kirton, M. (1994).Adaptors and innovators. Styles of creativity and problem solving. London, UK: International Thomson Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kolb, D. (1998).Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Krathwohl, D. (1993).Methods of educational and social science research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Kruskal, J., & Wish, M. (1978).Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Larman, C. (2001).Applying UML and patterns: An introduction to object-oriented analysis and design and the unified process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mager, R. (1997).Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: The Center for Effective Performance.Google Scholar
  37. Michalko, M. (1998).Cracking creativity. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mind Manager® [Computer software]. (2002). Mindjet: Larkspur, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Novak, J. (1998).Learning, creating and using knowledge. Concept mapsä as facilitative tools in schools and corporation. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  40. Patton, M. (1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Raybould, B. (2000). Building performance-centered web-based systems, information systems, and knowledge management systems in the 21st century.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 39(6), 32–39.Google Scholar
  42. Richey, R., & Nelson, W. (1996). Development research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (pp. 1213–1245). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  43. Riding, R., & Rayners, S. (1998).Cognitive styles and learning strategies. Understanding style differences in learning and behavior. London, UK: David Fulton Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Salomon, G. (1979).Interaction of media, cognition and learning. Mahwah, NJ: LEAGoogle Scholar
  45. Schön, D. (1996).The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London, UK: Arena.Google Scholar
  46. SenGupta, S. (1996, November).Concept mapping and pattern matching in integrated mental health service delivery. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Evaluation Association. Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved May 25, 2000 from http://www.conceptsystems.com/papers/paperu sr/sengupta/aea96.htmGoogle Scholar
  47. Stoyanov, S. (2001).Mapping in the educational and training design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  48. SPSS® [Computer software]. (2002). SPSS, Inc. Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  49. Straker, D. (1997).Rapid problem solving with Post-itO notes. Tucson, Arizona: Fisher Books.Google Scholar
  50. Trochim, W. (Ed.). (1989a). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation.Evaluation and Program Planning [Special issue]. 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
  51. Trochim, W. (Ed.). (1989b). Concept mapping: Soft science or hard art?Evaluation and Program Planning [Special issue]. 12, 87–110.Google Scholar
  52. Trochim, W. (1993, November).Reliability of concept mapping. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Evaluation Association. Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
  53. Trochim, W. (1996, November).An Internet-based concept mapping of accreditation standards for evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Evaluation Association: Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  54. Trochim, W. (1999a, November).Measuring organizational performance as a result of installing a new information system: Using concept mapping as the basis for performance measurement. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association. Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  55. Trochim, W. (1999b, October).The evaluator as cartographer: Technology for mapping where we're going and where we've been. Paper presented at the conference of the Oregon Program Evaluators Network “Evaluation and Technology: Tools for the 21st Century” Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  56. van der Heijden, K (1996).Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichetser, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. van der Heijden, K., & Eden, C. (1998). The theory and praxis of reflective learning in strategic making. In C. Eden & J-C. Spender (Eds.),Managerial and organisational cognition. Theory, method and research (pp. 58–75). London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  58. VanGundy, A. (1997).Techniques of structured problem solving. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  59. van Merriënboer, J. (1997).Training complex cognitive skills. A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  60. van Merriënboer, J., Clark, R., & de Croock, M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID model.Educational Technology, Research & Development, 50(2), 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vennix, J.A.M. (1997).Group model building. Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  62. Visscher-Voerman, I., Gustafson, K., & Plomp, T. (1999). Educational design and development. An overview of paradigms. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plompt (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 15–28). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  63. Voss, J., Lawrence, J., & Engle, R. (1992). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R. Sternberg & P. Frensch (Eds.),Complex problem solving (pp. 119–183). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  64. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Yin, R. (1994).Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Technology Expertise CenterOpen University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations